Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Design Procedure For Intermediate External Diaphragms On Curved Steel Trapezoidal Box Girder Bridges (0-1898-1)
A Design Procedure For Intermediate External Diaphragms On Curved Steel Trapezoidal Box Girder Bridges (0-1898-1)
Project conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and
the Texas Department of Transportation.
16. Abstract
Steel trapezoidal box girders are well-suited for curved bridges due to their high torsional rigidity. This bridge type features one or
more steel trapezoidal girders with a cast-in-place concrete roadway slab. Once the slab is in place, the section becomes fully
closed, and the stiffness and strength of the bridge cross-section significantly increases. Temporary intermediate external cross-
frames, or diaphragms, are typically installed during the construction phase to limit rotations and twisting distortions in the girders
in order to maintain alignment. It is important to optimize the number of intermediate external diaphragms due to their added cost
for design, fabrication, installation, and removal.
A method for the design of intermediate external diaphragms is presented herein. The design procedure was developed through an
investigation of torsion in curved girders and the effect of torsion on twin-trapezoidal box girder bridge systems. The design
procedure was evaluated by comparing results with data from a highway bridge in Austin, Texas that was completed in summer
2001. Two external diaphragms on the bridge were monitored during the concrete deck pours and during a live load test after the
deck had hardened.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161.
19. Security Classif. (of report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 119
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
A Design Procedure for Intermediate External Diaphragms
on Curved Steel Trapezoidal Box Girder Bridges
by
by the
CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
BUREAU OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
October 2002
Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We greatly appreciate the financial support from the Texas Department of Transportation that made this
project possible. The support of the project director, John Holt (BRG), and program coordinator, Richard
Wilkison (BRG), is also very much appreciated.
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal
Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 BRIDGE STUDIED.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM ........................................................................................................... 5
v
4.4.1 Rotation due to Live Loads.................................................................................................................26
4.4.2 Slab Moments .....................................................................................................................................28
4.4.3 Capacity of Slab..................................................................................................................................29
4.4.4 Intermediate Diaphragms for In-Service Bridge.................................................................................29
4.5 LIMITATIONS OF DESIGN PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 30
vi
CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................73
7.1 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................73
7.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................................73
7.3 EVALUATION OF DESIGN PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................74
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................103
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Cross Section of Trapezoidal Box Girder System (John Holt, Texas Department of Transportation,
1998) ..........................................................................................................................................................1
Figure 1.2 Site Location (Cheplak, 2001) ...................................................................................................................2
Figure 1.3 Bridge K Dimensions (Cheplak 2001).......................................................................................................2
Figure 1.4 K Girder Dimensions .................................................................................................................................3
Figure 1.5 Cross section during Construction (Cheplak, 2001) ..................................................................................3
Figure 1.6 Bridge K during Construction (at 17K Looking South) (Cheplak, 2001) ..................................................4
Figure 1.7 Aerial view of Completed Bridge K (Looking North) (http://www.jdabrams.com, 2001) .......................4
Figure 1.8 Cross section without Intermediate External Diaphragms .........................................................................5
Figure 2.1 Equivalent Plate Method (Kolbrunner & Basler, 1969).............................................................................7
Figure 2.2 Plan View of Curved Girder ......................................................................................................................8
Figure 2.3 Plan View of Curved Member Showing Center of Curvature ...................................................................9
Figure 2.4 Induced Torsional Loads on Curved Girders .............................................................................................9
Figure 2.5 Idealized Girder Cross Section (Kolbrunner & Basler, 1969) .................................................................10
Figure 2.6 Angle of Twist Formulas .........................................................................................................................11
Figure 2.7 Girder Rotation ........................................................................................................................................13
Figure 2.8 Equal and Opposite Displacement of Top Flanges ..................................................................................13
Figure 2.9 Differential Displacement in Slab (Exaggerated) ....................................................................................14
Figure 3.1 Typical Cross Section ..............................................................................................................................15
Figure 3.2 Slab Analytical Model .............................................................................................................................15
Figure 3.3 One Girder Rotating.................................................................................................................................16
Figure 3.4 Both Girders Rotating w/ Antisymmetry .................................................................................................17
Figure 3.5 Both Girders Rotating in Opposite Directions (Symmetric) ....................................................................18
Figure 3.6 Other Slab Loads......................................................................................................................................19
Figure 4.1 Maximum Allowable Rotation in Girders Before Deck is Poured...........................................................23
Figure 4.2 K-frame Configuration (Cheplak, 2001)..................................................................................................24
Figure 4.3 Torque Acting on Intermediate Diaphragm .............................................................................................24
Figure 4.4 Behavior of Girders in Response to Torsional Loads ..............................................................................25
Figure 4.5 Antisymmetric Rotation due to In-Service Loads....................................................................................26
Figure 4.6 Loading Case Corresponding to Largest Actual Rotation........................................................................27
Figure 4.7 Typical Moment Envelope in Slab with Small Girder Rotations.............................................................28
Figure 4.8 Typical Moment Envelope in Slab with Large Girder Rotations.............................................................28
Figure 4.9 Roadway Slab Design Strip .....................................................................................................................29
Figure 5.1 Example Bridge .......................................................................................................................................31
ix
Figure 5.2 Example Girder Cross Section .................................................................................................................31
Figure 5.3 Example Bridge Cross Section ................................................................................................................32
Figure 5.4 Span 1 Properties .....................................................................................................................................32
Figure 5.5 Span 2 Properties .....................................................................................................................................33
Figure 5.6 Span 3 Properties .....................................................................................................................................34
Figure 5.7 Critical Diaphragm in Span 2...................................................................................................................36
Figure 5.8 Critical Diaphragm in Span 3...................................................................................................................36
Figure 5.9 Dimensions of Typical Diaphragm ..........................................................................................................38
Figure 5.10 Force Couple Transferred to Diaphragm .................................................................................................38
Figure 5.11 Design Forces ..........................................................................................................................................39
Figure 5.12 Truck Train Lane Loading .......................................................................................................................42
Figure 5.13 Span 1 Slab Moments ..............................................................................................................................43
Figure 5.14 Span 2 Slab Moments ..............................................................................................................................44
Figure 5.15 Span 3 Slab Moments ..............................................................................................................................44
Figure 5.16 Cross Section of Slab Design Strip ..........................................................................................................45
Figure 5.17 Span 2 Slab Moments (2nd Pass) ..............................................................................................................46
Figure 6.1 Instrumented Locations on Bridge K (Cheplak, 2001) ............................................................................49
Figure 6.2 Member Numbering System (Cheplak, 2001) .........................................................................................50
Figure 6.3 External Diaphragm #11 -- Looking South (Cheplak, 2001) ...................................................................51
Figure 6.4 Bridge K Pouring Sequence.....................................................................................................................51
Figure 6.5 Member Numbering System ....................................................................................................................53
Figure 6.6 Diaphragm #11-5 During K Concrete Pours............................................................................................53
Figure 6.7 Plan View of Bridge K Span 18...............................................................................................................54
Figure 6.8 Total Dead Load on Bridge K Span 18....................................................................................................54
Figure 6.9 Torque at Intermediate External Diaphragms in Span 18 ........................................................................55
Figure 6.10 Torque From Each Girder on Diaphragm #11 .........................................................................................55
Figure 6.11 Torque From Each Girder on Diaphragm #18 .........................................................................................55
Figure 6.12 Orientation of Torque on Cross Section...................................................................................................56
Figure 6.13 Expected Forces in Diaphragm #11 from Worst Case .............................................................................57
Figure 6.14 Expected Forces in Diaphragm #18 from Worst Case .............................................................................57
Figure 6.15 Forces Transferred to Top Chord.............................................................................................................58
Figure 6.16 Top Chord in Diaphragm #11 During K Pours 4 & 5 ..............................................................................59
Figure 6.17 Top Chord in Diaphragm #18 During K Pour 3.......................................................................................59
Figure 6.18 Torque at Mid-Span .................................................................................................................................60
Figure 6.19 Live Load Test Truck Positions for Bridge K..........................................................................................61
Figure 6.20 Truck Positioning During K Live Load Test ...........................................................................................61
Figure 6.21 External Diaphragms In Place for K Live Load Test...............................................................................62
x
Figure 6.22 Temperature Correction for Diaphragm #18-2 during K Live Load Test Over Inner Girder .................63
Figure 6.23 Axial Force in Diaphragm #18-5 during K Live Load Test over Inner Girder .......................................63
Figure 6.24 Live Load Test Setup on Bridge K (Outer Run) .....................................................................................65
Figure 6.25 Live Load Test Setup on Bridge K (Inner Run) ......................................................................................65
Figure 6.26 Concentrated Load from Dump Trucks...................................................................................................66
Figure 6.27 Torques Transferred to Diaphragms........................................................................................................66
Figure 6.28 Expected Forces in Diaphragm #11 (Outer Run) ....................................................................................67
Figure 6.29 Expected Forces in Diaphragm #11 (Inner Run).....................................................................................67
Figure 6.30 Expected Forces in Diaphragm #18 (Outer Run) ....................................................................................68
Figure 6.31 Expected Forces in Diaphragm #18 (Inner Run).....................................................................................68
Figure 6.32 Axial Forces due to Deflection of Outer Girder ......................................................................................70
Figure 6.33 Axial Forces due to Deflection of Inner Girder.......................................................................................70
xi
xii
LIST OF TABLES
xiii
xiv
SUMMARY
Steel trapezoidal box girders are well-suited for curved bridges due to their high torsional rigidity. This
bridge type features one or more steel trapezoidal girders with a cast-in-place concrete roadway slab.
Once the slab is in place, the section becomes fully closed, and the stiffness and strength of the bridge
cross-section significantly increases. Temporary intermediate external cross-frames, or diaphragms, are
typically installed during the construction phase to limit rotations and twisting distortions in the girders in
order to maintain alignment. It is important to optimize the number of intermediate external diaphragms
due to their added cost for design, fabrication, installation, and removal.
A method for the design of intermediate external diaphragms is presented herein. The design procedure
was developed through an investigation of torsion in curved girders and the effect of torsion on twin-
trapezoidal box girder bridge systems. The design procedure was evaluated by comparing results with
data from a highway bridge in Austin, Texas that was completed in summer 2001. Two external
diaphragms on the bridge were monitored during the concrete deck pours and during a live load test after
the deck had hardened.
xv
xvi
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1:
1.1 BACKGROUND
A popular choice for superstructure types for curved bridges is the steel trapezoidal box girder system.
Trapezoidal box girders are well-suited for curved bridges because of their high torsional rigidity. This
bridge type features one or more steel trapezoidal girders with a cast-in-place concrete roadway slab.
Shear studs fastened to the top flanges of the girders create composite action between the girders and the
slab. This significantly increases the stiffness and strength of the bridge cross section. Refer to
Figure 1.1 for a schematic of a typical twin-girder bridge cross section.
CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE SLAB
STAY-IN-PLACE
METAL DECK FORMS
STEEL TRAPEZOIDAL
BOX GIRDERS
Although the trapezoidal girders are extremely rigid in the completed bridge, the top flanges of each
girder require bracing during the construction phase. These top lateral braces, which are usually WT
sections, form a “quasi-closed” section and are designed to resist torsion. These members also provide
additional area at the location of the top flanges of the girders so that they will resist a portion of the
girder bending moment; this area is usually ignored in design (Helwig & Fan, 1999).
Internal cross frames, or diaphragms, are spaced evenly throughout the girder to control distortions in the
cross section and to provide lateral stability. Additionally, in multi-girder bridges, temporary external
diaphragms can be installed during the construction phase between two girders to limit rotations and
twisting distortions in the girders in order to maintain alignment. These temporary cross frames are
removed once the concrete deck has hardened sufficiently. The performance of intermediate external
diaphragms in a twin-girder bridge was investigated during this study.
1
systems for the curved central spans and straight concrete U-shaped girder systems for the approach
spans. The bridges were designed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Design Division
in Austin. The steel fabricator was Trinity Industries, Inc. in Houston, and the contractor for the project
was Austin-based J.D. Abrams, Inc.
Bridge K, which connects southbound IH-35 to eastbound US 290, was studied for this project. The steel
portion of Bridge K has three spans with a radius of curvature of approximately 575 feet at the centerline
of the cross section. The curved portion of the bridge is symmetric; end spans 17 and 19 are of equal
length. Figure 1.3 shows the bridge in plan view.
SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND
IH35 IH35
K - CONNECT
WESTBOUND
US290
WESTBOUND
RM 2222
EASTBOUND
US290
EASTBOUND
RM 2222
NORTH
The locations of the internal diaphragms, top lateral bracing, and external diaphragms are also shown in
Figure 1.3. The internal diaphragms are spaced approximately every 16 feet. The location of an internal
diaphragm is also known as a panel point. The external diaphragms, made up of L5x5x1/2 members were
placed at every other panel point. WT8x33.5 members were used for all top lateral bracing. Solid plates
with stiffeners are used as internal diaphragms at the end piers, and plates with access holes and stiffeners
are located at the intermediate piers.
NORTH
168'
'
168
17K 242'
20K
SPAN 17
SPAN 19
18K
19K
SPAN 18
2
Figure 1.4 shows the dimensions of the girder cross section. The dashed line in between the top flanges is
because the girder is quasi-closed; there is a WT diagonal brace within each panel and not a solid plate.
This concept is explained further in Chapter 2.
1'-8" 1'-8"
7'-8"
6'
4'-8"
Figure 1.5 shows the bridge configuration at an external diaphragm location during the construction
phase. Two external diaphragms were instrumented and monitored throughout the concrete deck pours to
determine the change in axial forces of the cross frame members due to the weight of the concrete. These
diaphragms remained in place for a live load test, which was conducted approximately three months after
the pours were completed. Figure 1.6 shows an overall view of Bridge K during construction, and
Figure 1.7 is photo of the completed bridge from the contractor’s website (http://www.jdabrams.com).
Gusset Internal
Plate Cross-frame
Web Temporary
Stiffener External
Cross-frame
In addition to the two external diaphragms that were instrumented on Bridge K, a total of eight top flange
lateral braces and six individual girder cross sections were also instrumented to measure forces and
stresses, respectively. Temperatures were also monitored at two separate locations inside the outer
girder. That data are presented elsewhere (Cheplak et al 2002). The research was in conjunction with
work done by Brian Chen and Cem Topkaya, Ph.D. candidates at the University of Texas at Austin (UT),
and Ben Cheplak, UT M.S.E. 2001.
3
Figure 1.6 Bridge K during Construction (at 17K Looking South) (Cheplak, 2001)
1.3 SCOPE
This research was undertaken in order to understand the behavior of curved steel trapezoidal box girders
and was sponsored by TxDOT. The research concentrated on top flange lateral braces and temporary
intermediate external diaphragms because limited information is currently available on these topics. The
work presented herein focused on the behavior of the temporary intermediate external diaphragms.
4
The aim of the research was to provide design guidelines for intermediate external diaphragms, as such
guidelines presently do not exist. It is important to optimize the number of external diaphragms due to
their added cost for design, fabrication, installation and removal. Not all curved steel trapezoidal box
girder bridges require intermediate external diaphragms; some have been successfully built with external
diaphragms only at the piers (Helwig & Fan, 1999).
A general description of torsion in curved girders is given in Chapter 2 and an investigation of the effect
of torsion on twin-trapezoidal girder bridge systems is presented in Chapter 3. This information was used
to develop a design method for placing external diaphragms in curved trapezoidal box girder bridges
(Chapter 4). The effectiveness of the design method in predicting the forces in the external diaphragm
members was studied for both the construction phase and in-service loading of Bridge K (Chapter 6).
φ φ
S.C. S.C.
In order to understand the design problem, it is necessary to have an understanding of angle of twist (φ)
and the moments that are induced in the bridge roadway slab by the individual girder rotations. In
5
Chapter 2, equations are presented for calculating φ; and in Chapter 3, explanations of the moments in the
slab caused by differential movement and other loads are provided. The design procedure in Chapter 4
combines the information from Chapters 2 and 3.
6
CHAPTER 2:
TORSION IN CURVED GIRDERS
Chapter 2:
a a
A0
d
b
Ad
Au
⎛E⎞ ab
Effective plate thickness: t* = ⎜ ⎟ 3 (2-1)
⎝G⎠ d a3 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ + ⎟
Ad 3 ⎝ A0 Au ⎟⎠
7
2.3 CURVED GIRDERS ANALYZED AS STRAIGHT GIRDERS
2.3.1 Justification
It is difficult to calculate exact moments and stresses for curved girders. The analysis requires
sophisticated computer analysis programs that are only available to researchers; furthermore, these
analyses cannot be practically applied to bridge design. An approximate method is necessary.
One approximate method is to analyze the girder as if it were straight. Tung and Fountain (1970)
demonstrated that this approximation is acceptable for girders that have subtended angles per span of up
to 40° and are restrained from rotating at the ends. Since the radius is relatively large, it is assumed that
the effect of curvature on the bending behavior of a curved girder is negligible. The bending moment of
the girder can be determined by neglecting the curvature and using traditional beam theory for straight
girders (Helwig & Fan, 2000).
d d0
In Figure 2.2, a straight dashed line connects the two ends of a curved girder, called the chord. The
straight perpendicular distance from any point on this line to the curved girder is d. The maximum d
occurs at the center of the arc, where it is denoted d0. d0 is calculated using the radius of curvature (R)
and subtended angle (α) of the girder (see Figure 2.3). Note that the girder is symmetric about the
centerline.
Assuming no eccentric loads, the applied torque at any point along the girder is a equivalent to the load at
that point multiplied by d at that point. If the girder were straight, d would equal zero at every point along
the member; therefore, there would be no torsion on the girder.
The torsional loads that result from the curvature of the girder must be applied on the straightened
member that is used for design. Because of symmetry, half of this torque goes to one end support, and
half goes to the other end support. The end supports must be able to withstand these torques, or the girder
will rigidly rotate about the chord line.
A point load placed on a curved girder induces a torque equal to P x d. If the load is applied at mid-span,
then the torque is equal to P x d0. A uniformly distributed load on a curved girder induces a parabolic
torque distribution. The torque at any point is calculated by multiplying the value of the distributed load
w by d at that point, where d is defined as a parabolic function. Figure 2.4 shows how the torsion due to
curvature is applied to a straight girder of equal length.
8
L
d0
x L/2 x L/2
R R
⎡ ⎛ α ⎞⎤
d 0 = R ⎢1 − sin ⎜ 90° − ⎟⎥ (2-2)
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦
P T = Pd
Pdb Pda
L L
a
a b
L
b L
w T(x)
wd0L wd0L
3 3
4 wd 0 4 wd
Applied torque at any point (k-ft/ft): T ( x) = x − 2 0 x2
L L
⎧ L⎫
⎨0 ≤ x ≤ ⎬ symmetric (2-3)
⎩ 2⎭
9
2.4 GIRDER TORSIONAL CONSTANT
The torsional stiffness of the girder can be quantified by the torsional constant, J. Steel trapezoidal
girders, which are made up of steel plates that are welded together, can be analyzed as thin-walled
sections because of the large aspect ratios of the plates. The formula for J for thin-walled shapes is a
function of the area enclosed by the section and the ratios of length-to-thickness of all sides of the cross
section. This formula is presented in Figure 2.5.
b1,t1
b2,t2 A0 b2,t2 h
b3,t3
Equation 2-5 can be applied to any closed or quasi-closed trapezoidal box girder section. Because the
trapezoidal girder is assumed to be a thin-walled section, the dimensions shown are measured from the
centerline of each member.
J must be calculated for both the construction and in-service phases of the girder. The only aspect of the
cross section that changes with the addition of the slab is the length-to-thickness ratio of the equivalent
top plate (b1/t1 in Figure 2.5). The values calculated for J will be used in the appropriate formulas for
angle of twist to determine the amount of rotation expected in the girders.
The equivalent thickness of the top flange, which is calculated using the Equivalent Plate Method, has a
significant impact on the girder torsional stiffness (J). Generally, if the equivalent thickness is small, J is
small. As the equivalent thickness increases, J increases as well. Prior to the placement of the concrete
slab, the contribution of the idealized top plate to the girder torsional stiffness is small. Typically, the
equivalent top plate during the construction phase is five to 10 percent as thick as the web plates and
bottom flange plates.
For bridge K, the equivalent top flange thickness is 0.04 inches, which is approximately five per cent of
the thickness of both the web plates and the bottom flange plate. J for the quasi-closed girder is
approximately 40,000 in4. If the fictional top plate had the same thickness as the web plate, then J would
be increased by over six times. With the concrete deck in place, the equivalent top plate thickness
increases to approximately 1.4 inches, and J increases to approximately eight times the J from the
construction phase. In contrast, J for the open girder (girder cross section minus the top laterals) is
approximately 25 in4.
10
2.5 ANGLE OF TWIST FORMULAS
Four common torsional loadings that a bridge span will experience due to either eccentric loads or bridge
curvature are: a singular applied torque, a uniformly distributed torque, a parabolic torque distribution,
and a half-parabolic torque distribution. Formulas for angle of twist (φ) at any point along the member
for these four loadings are presented within this section and are shown in Figure 2.6. In cases where more
than one torsional loading type exists, the principle of superposition shall be used; elasticity of the girder
is assumed.
a b
φ ( x) =
Pdbx
{x < a} (2-6)
GJL
Pda( L − x)
φ ( x) = {x ≥ a} (2-7)
GJL
φmax = φ (a) =
Pdab
{x = a} (2-8)
GJL
tL
t tL
2 2
φ ( x) =
tx
(L − x ) (2-9)
2GJ
⎛ L ⎞ tL
2
φmax = φ⎜ ⎟ = (2-10)
⎝ 2 ⎠ 8GJ
11
(c) Parabolic Torque Distribution
T(x)
wd0L wd0L
3 3
wd 0 x ⎡ 2 x 3 8 x 2 ⎤ ⎧ L⎫
φ ( x) = ⎢ 2 − + L⎥ ⎨0 ≤ x ≤ ⎬ symmetric (2-11)
3GJ ⎣ L 3L ⎦ ⎩ 2⎭
⎛ L⎞ 7 wd 0 L2
φmax = φ ⎜ ⎟ = (2-12)
⎝2⎠ 72GJ
T(x) t0
5t0L 7t0L
18 18
t0 x ⎡ 3x3 4 x 2 5L ⎤
φ ( x) = ⎢ 2− + ⎥ (2-13)
9GJ ⎣ 2 L L 2⎦
0.0942t0 L2
φmax = φ (0.533L ) = (2-14)
GJ
Figure 2.6 Angle of Twist Formulas (continued)
12
S.C.
Rotations in the girder will cause the top flanges to displace vertically in opposite directions. For
symmetric girders rotating through small angles and without distortion, the displacements are equal and
can be calculated using this simple approximation:
∆ = xrφ (2-15)
where xr is the distance from the centerline of the girder to the intersection of the top flange and web, and
∆ is measured from the top flange-web intersection working point (see Figure 2.8). This expression is
valid for small rotations only. In fact, the rotations that the girder actually experiences in its final state are
usually less than 1° (0.0175 rad). Additionally, with this simple formula, the vertical position of the shear
center has no effect.
xr
S.C.
In multi-girder bridges, rotation in adjacent girders results in a differential displacement between the top
flanges of the two girders. This differential displacement can create significant bending moments in the
slab. Once the magnitude of the moments reach the bending strength, the portion of the slab in between
the two girders becomes ineffective in helping to resist loads on the structure. Figure 2.9 provides an
exaggerated view of how the slab is affected by the differential displacement in the girders.
13
φ φ
S.C. S.C.
14
CHAPTER 3:
MODELING OF THE BRIDGE DECK
Chapter 3:
c L1 L2 L1 c
L2 is not the same as the effective span length S as defined in the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (1996) Section 3.24.1.
Here, S is the effective span length for which flexural reinforcement in the slab must be designed. In the
case of external diaphragm design, S is not applicable.
c L1 L2 L1 c
The reasoning for simple supports and not fixed or spring supports is that the restraining effect of the slab
is not taken into account. In actuality, the slab will help to restrict the girder rotations, which will result
in lower deformations, but that is beyond the scope of this study. When the slab cracks, it will no longer
15
be able to contribute to helping restrict the girder rotations. Not considering this restraining effect is the
conservative view.
S.C.
∆
∆
+M∆1
-M∆2
c L1 L2 L1 c
16
Both Girders Rotating in the Same Direction
S.C. S.C.
∆ ∆
+M∆
-M∆
c L1 L2 L1 c
17
Both Girders Rotating in Opposite Directions
S.C. S.C.
∆ ∆
-M∆ -M∆
c L1 L2 L1 c
18
P
L2
2
P (wheel load)
w (dead load)
M2
M1 M1
M due to P
Mb Mb
Ma Ma
M due to w
c L1 L2 L1 c
19
20
CHAPTER 4:
DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR INTERMEDIATE EXTERNAL DIAPHRAGMS
Chapter 4:
21
do not reach the ultimate capacity in the slab. The number of diaphragms required to restrict girder
rotations due to live loads during the in-service phase is typically zero. It is also important to check the
bridge for this condition to determine if the intermediate external diaphragms can be removed after the
concrete deck has hardened.
22
starting point for determining the number of intermediate external diaphragms that are required for the
construction phase.
xr
1
1 4 in
4 in
S.C.
The reasoning for limiting the vertical displacement of the tips of the flanges at ¼ in. has to do with
construction concerns. With large girder rotations, the overhang bracket, which is used to line up the
metal deck, can become skewed. Also, large girder rotations would result in a “roller coaster” effect on
the slab (source: John Holt of the TxDOT Bridge Design Division).
With a known girder size and maximum allowable differential displacement (½ in.), the maximum
allowable angle of twist in the girder can be easily solved using equation 2-13. For example, for a girder
that is 96 inches wide at the top: xr = 48 inches, and φ = 0.0052 radians, or 0.3°.
If the calculated rotation due to dead loads is smaller than the maximum allowable girder rotation, then no
intermediate diaphragms are required for the purposes of torsion. If the calculated rotation is larger,
however, intermediate diaphragms must be added so that the calculated rotation in the girder is less than
the maximum allowable rotation. The maximum spacing (smax) for intermediate diaphragms due to the
maximum allowable twist is determined by solving for L in equation 2-12. The number of required
intermediate external diaphragms could possibly be reduced by using a step-by-step approach (i.e. adding
one diaphragm at a time and then recalculating the girder rotations for each section of the span).
For convenience and also to avoid localized stresses in the webs of the girder, the intermediate external
diaphragms are installed at the internal diaphragm locations (panel points). The spacing of the internal
diaphragms is determined by a separate procedure.
23
4.3.4 Standard Diaphragm
In the event that intermediate external diaphragms are required, the engineer can select an appropriate
bracing configuration (i.e. K-bracing, X- bracing). Selection of the bracing type is based on practical
considerations. This design procedure does not specify a certain bracing type or diaphragm depth. The
primary concern for the intermediate external diaphragms is controlling girder rotations. It does not
matter how they are configured; rather, it matters how adequately they can restrain the girder rotations.
The bracing design that was chosen for the highway interchange at IH-35 and US 290 is a K-frame with
the chevron opening upward, as shown in Figure 4.2. K-bracing was chosen because of its relative ease
of fabrication and installation. The chevron opened upward in order to brace the longer bottom chord of
the diaphragm. The diaphragm was not full-depth; it was approximately nine inches shorter than the
girder on both the top and bottom. This reduction in depth made the diaphragms easier to install and
remove.
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
Once the bracing configuration is determined, the intermediate external diaphragm with the largest
torsional moment is analyzed to determine the forces in each member of the cross-frame. As shown in
Figure 4.3, the same torsional moment is applied by each girder on the diaphragm. This torsional
moment causes a displacement in each girder, which can be divided into a bending component and a
torsion component (see Figure 4.4). The shear force V shown in Figure 4.4 is the force required to realign
the girder. This force and the accompanying moment (determined from statics) carried by the diaphragm
is used to calculate the member forces. Each of the members is sized based on the force in the member
and the unbraced length. The largest member size specified should be used in each of the members of the
diaphragm for economy and ease of fabrication.
T T
=
T T T T T T
EFFECT ON V
V
DIAPHRAGM: M M
V
V
EFFECT ON
GIRDERS:
V V V V V V V V
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
+ +
∆b ∆t ∆b ∆t
+ +
It is not practical to design each diaphragm separately and specify different member sizes; rather, the one
diaphragm which takes on the largest torsional moment should be designed and then made typical
throughout the span. In multi-span bridges, it is economical to specify the same diaphragm throughout
the entire bridge at each location where one is required.
25
4.4 CHECK BRIDGE IN SERVICE
4.4.1 Rotation due to Live Loads
4.4.1.1 Loading Condition
After the concrete deck has hardened, only live loads are to be considered in checking the girder for
excessive rotations. At this point, rotations due to the dead loads have taken place. In-service live loads
(i.e. vehicular traffic) cause girder rotations due to the bridge curvature and also due to the location of the
live load on the slab. Any load that is not directly on the centerline of one of the girders will cause the
girder(s) beneath it to rotate because of the eccentricity.
Similar to the construction phase, the assumed worst case during the live load phase is conservative and
results in larger rotations than in the real bridge. This worst case for in-service conditions assumes that
both girders rotate anti-symmetrically – in the same direction by the same angle of twist – at every point
along the span. An illustration of the antisymmetric rotation in the girders is shown in Figure 4.5.
a
S.C. S.C.
In order for the girders to rotate antisymmetrically, the torsional loads must be identical. Although the
torsional loads due to bridge curvature are equal in each girder, this is not necessarily true for
eccentrically applied loads on the roadway slab and is not likely for the extreme loading cases.
From the three support displacement moment cases presented in Section 3.3 and the corresponding
information provided in Appendix A, it can be seen that the largest moments in the slab occur when the
girders rotate in the same direction. The calculations are much simpler if the girders rotate by the same
amount, so the worst case considers two girders rotating antisymmetrically with larger-than-actual
rotations. In fact, when the girders rotate in the opposite direction, the effect on the moment in the slab is
reduced.
The extreme loading cases assume that the bridge is fully loaded along the entire span. This is
represented in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges as a continuous line of trucks,
or a truck train. The truck train for heavy loading is modeled by a uniformly distributed load of
640 pounds per linear foot of lane and a concentrated load of 18,000 pounds at the location where it
causes the maximum moment on the bridge. The distributed load is applied longitudinally at the center of
a 10-foot-wide design lane, and the concentrated load is applied at the center of the span in each lane. For
the design of intermediate external diaphragms, the design lanes need to be placed in such a way that they
cause the largest possible rotation in the girders.
In an actual bridge, the slab is continuous over the girders, as shown in Figure 4.5. The slab will help
restrain girder twist; the girders do not act independently. Once the slab cracks at location “a” (see
Figure 4.5), however, this restraining effect is diminished significantly. For this reason, this restraining
effect is ignored for the purposes of calculating girder rotations. The slab, therefore, is considered only to
26
distribute the loads on it to the girders beneath. The loads distributed to each girder are based on the
tributary area of the girder. Loads that straddle the center line between two girders are distributed to both
girders, thus reducing the effect on one girder alone.
Figure 4.6 shows the loading condition that would cause the worst actual rotation in a typical two-girder
bridge. e denotes the eccentricity of the design lane load. The largest actual rotation occurs when one
design lane is positioned as close to the edge of the slab as possible, and another design lane is flush with
the centerline of the cross-section. The eccentricities of the loads over each girder are different; as a
result, one girder has a larger torsional load and undergoes a larger rotation than the other. For the design
procedure, though, both girders are assigned the higher girder rotation for simpler calculations and a more
conservative design.
CL CROSS-SECTION
CURB WIDTH
10' DESIGN LANE 10' DESIGN LANE
640 lb/ft 640 lb/ft
5' + e1 5' e2
CURB WIDTH
27
4.4.2 Slab Moments
As explained in Chapter 3, there are three moment cases to consider in the slab. There are moments due
to girder rotations / slab support displacements, the design wheel load, and the slab self-weight. Each of
these moments can be calculated using the figures in Chapter 3 and corresponding information in
Appendix A. All moment calculations assume a one-foot slab design width of the slab.
Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show typical moment envelopes in a slab with small and large girder rotations,
respectively. It is apparent that with small girder rotations, the dominating moment case is that of the
design wheel load; however, when the girders undergo significant rotations, the moment due to the slab
support displacements dominates. The largest moments occur at the interior slab supports.
M due to displ
M due to P
M due to SW
Total Moment
Figure 4.7 Typical Moment Envelope in Slab with Small Girder Rotations
M due to displ
M due to P
M due to SW
Total Moment
Figure 4.8 Typical Moment Envelope in Slab with Large Girder Rotations
28
4.4.3 Capacity of Slab
In the construction phase, the amount of rotation permitted in the girder is limited by the amount of
vertical displacement of the top flanges. The criteria are different in the in-service phase; here, the
ultimate moment in the slab is the limiting factor. The maximum moment from the slab moment
envelope calculated for the slab must not reach the slab ultimate moment.
The ultimate moment in the slab is calculated for a one-foot-wide design strip. A drawing of the basic
design strip is shown in Figure 4.9. d and ct represent the respective depths of the bottom and top mats of
steel reinforcement.
1 ft
ct
thickness
d
slab
In the typical roadway slab, the top clearance (ct) is greater than the bottom clearance; therefore, the
calculated moment capacity assuming compression in the top of the design strip is larger than the
calculated moment capacity assuming compression in the bottom. However, in the real slab, this is not
necessarily the case. Although its contribution is ignored in analysis, the metal deck that forms the
bottom of the slab acts essentially as reinforcing steel that boosts the moment capacity of the slab. For the
design procedure, it is acceptable to assume that the bending of the slab in either direction will result in
the same ultimate moment capacity, even though there is less concrete cover in the bottom.
The ultimate moment capacity assuming compression in the top of the design strip is determined using
the moment-curvature relationship of the slab. Typical values for an eight-inch slab are between
20-25 kip-feet (240-300 kip-inches). The moment capacity of the slab is compared with the maximum
moment in the slab determined from the slab moment envelope.
29
4.5 LIMITATIONS OF DESIGN PROCEDURE
This design procedure assumes that warping is not a factor because of the large torsional stiffness of the
quasi-closed and closed section status of the trapezoidal girder. If warping is a factor, this method is not
adequate for the design of intermediate external diaphragms. Warping becomes important when the
warping torsion constant (Iw) of a given member is significantly greater than the girder torsional constant
(J). This occurs only in open sections, and therefore, should not be a consideration with curved steel
trapezoidal girder bridge systems (Kolbrunner & Basler, 1969).
30
CHAPTER 5:
DESIGN EXAMPLE
Chapter 5:
250'
215'
'
210
SPAN 2 3X
2X
SPAN 3
SPAN 1 4X
1X
5'-0"
8'-0"
PL 1" x 2'-0" PL 1" x 2'-0"
EQUIVALENT
PLATE
PL 3/4"
5'-2"
31
30'-0"
8"
SPAN 1
21'-0" 21'-0"
2
20 in
22
'- 5"
8'-0"
2
9.84 in
2
20 in
The panel lengths are equal in both girders in the straight portion of the bridge, but they vary slightly from
inside girder to outside girder in the curved spans due to the small difference in the radii of curvature at
32
the inside and outside of the bridge cross section. This difference in radii is insignificant, as it is a small
percentage of the relatively large distance to the center of curvature of the bridge. For ease of calculation,
it is acceptable to assume that both girders have the same radius of curvature and that the bridge span is
measured on the centerline of the roadway slab. Then, the panel lengths can be determined by dividing
the span length by the number of panels. This assumption should only be used if the difference between
radii of curvature is less than 5% of R of the centerline.
For example, in the example bridge, R is given as 535 feet at the centerline of the bridge cross section.
Using the dimensions shown in Figure 5.3, it can be determined that R of the centerline of the inner girder
is 526′-10″, and R of the centerline of the outer girder is 543′-2″. The difference of these two radii
(16′-4″) is 3% of 535 feet, which is not a significant difference.
SPAN 2
17.9' 17.9'
2
20 in
19
.6
'
8'-0"
2
9.84 in
2
20 in
d0
x 125' x 125'
535' 535'
26.8°
⎡ ⎛ 26.8° ⎞⎤
d 0 = (535 ft ) ⎢1 − sin ⎜ 90° − ⎟ = 14.56 ft
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎥⎦
33
SPAN 3
16.5' 16.5'
2
20 in
18
.3
'
8'-0"
2
9.84 in
2
20 in
d0
x 107.5' x 107.5'
535' 535'
23.0°
⎡ ⎛ 23.0° ⎞⎤
d 0 = (535 ft ) ⎢1 − sin ⎜ 90° − ⎟ = 10.74 ft
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎥⎦
34
Increase the weight by 10 per cent to account for the top lateral bracing and internal cross
frames inside the girder:
wsteel = 1.1 × (661.5lbs / ft ) = 728lbs / ft
The weight of the concrete slab is:
wconc = 30 ft × 0.67 ft × 150lbs / ft 3 = 3000lbs / ft
Total dead load per span:
w = wsteel + wconc = 3.73 kips/ft (1.87 kip/ft per girder)
SPAN 1
Span 1 is straight; therefore, no intermediate diaphragms are required
for the purposes of torsion during the construction phase.
SPAN 2
From Eq. 2-15: φmax = 1 / 4in ÷ 60in = 0.0042rad = 0.24°
SPAN 3
7(1.87kip / ft )(10.74 ft ) L2
0.0042 = Æ L = 87.6 ft
72(1,612,800ksf )(2.21 ft 4 )
215 ft
= 2.5 Æ 3 intermediate diaphragms required
87.6 ft
Place diaphragms at quarter points of span; s = 53.8 ft
35
SPAN 2
54.3 k-ft/ft
52.2 k-ft/ft
34.8 k-ft/ft
TRIBUTARY WIDTH FOR
CRITICAL DIAPHRAGM
#1 #2 #3 #4
25' 25'
250'
SPAN 3
40.1 k-ft/ft
30.1 k-ft/ft
#1 #2 #3
26.9' 26.9'
215'
As shown in Figure 4.4, the shear force that is generated by girder rotation under load is broken up into
two components: bending and torsion. Given the actual displacement at the tip of the girder, the shear
force is solved for by calculating the force necessary to produce this amount of displacement. This shear
force is transferred into the external diaphragm, which also induces a moment on the cross frame.
The calculations for the shear force focus on only one intermediate external diaphragm at mid-span of
span 2 (the span of the design diaphragm). Including the effects of multiple diaphragms in the span
introduces conditions that are difficult to consider with only hand calculations. Furthermore, the
displacement values for both bending and torsion are both maximum at the mid-span; therefore, there is
some factor-of-safety in the results. The purpose is not to accurately calculate the exact forces that are
36
transferred through the external diaphragm; rather, the purpose is to determine the need for diaphragms in
the span.
Rotation at location of design diaphragm due to design loading condition:
From Eq. 2-11:
φ (100 ft ) =
(1.5k / ft )(14.56 ft )(100 ft ) ⎡ 2(100 ft ) 8(100 ft )
3
−
2
⎤
+ 250 ft ⎥ = 0.035rad
3(1,612,800ksf )(2.27in ) ⎣ (250 ft )
4 ⎢ 2
3(250 ft ) ⎦
Displacement of tip of girder due to rotation:
From Eq. 2-15: ∆ = (0.035rad )(96in ) = 3.36in = 0.28 ft
Bending component of displacement at the mid-span of span 2:
The girder deflects 0.68 inches downward with a 10-kip load at the mid-span of span 2; therefore,
∆b = 0.068V in = 0.0057V ft
Torsion component of displacement at the mid-span of span 2:
∆ t = bφ , where b is the width of the girder and φ is replaced by Eq. 2-8.
Also, the torque T in Eq. 2-8 is defined as Vb (the shear force times the width), and L is defined as
the length of span 2. G and J are properties of the girder.
⎡ ⎛ L ⎞2 ⎛ L ⎞2 ⎤
⎢T ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎛ Tab ⎞ ⎢ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝2⎠ ⎥ ⎛ TL2 ⎞ VLb 2
∆ t = b⎜ ⎟=b = b⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ =
⎝ GJL ⎠ ⎢ GJL ⎥ ⎝ 16GJL ⎠ 16GJ
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Solve for the shear force V:
∆ b + ∆ t = 0.28 ft
VLb 2
0.0057V + = 0.28 ft
16GJ
V = 46.7 kips
Solve for the moments on the diaphragm:
VL
M = = 155.7 k-ft
2
The moments are transferred to the top and bottom chords of diaphragm as a force couple, as
shown in Figure 5.10:
M 155.7k − ft
F= = = 31.1kips
depth 5 ft
Notes for Figure 5.11:
1. The shear force was solved for as specified in Section 4.3.4; Refer to the calculations
accompanying the figure.
37
2. The cross frames were treated as a truss. The space on the bottom chord in between the diagonals
was not enough for Vierendeel action to occur, and the diagonals were very close to the ends of
the top chord at the diaphragm-girder connections.
3. A positive force indicates tension, and a negative force indicates compression.
16'-4"
8'-4"
78"
60"
12" 12"
L = 8'-8" 0"
L=
1.5
6'-
6'-
L=
L = 10'-10" 1
0"
6"
Figure 5.9 Dimensions of Typical Diaphragm
M M
d
=
F/d F/d
V V
F/d F/d
38
31.1 k 31.1 k
46.7 k 46.7 k
31.1 k 31.1 k
0k
56.1 k -56.1 k
-31.1 k 31.1 k
Esteel 29,000ksi
η= = =8
Econc 3605ksi
SPAN 1
8in
t* = 0.025in + = 1.025in
η
4(6162in 2 ) 2
J= = 367,956in 4
⎛ 96in ⎞ ⎛ 79.8in ⎞ ⎛ 62in ⎞
⎜ ⎟ + 2⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1.025in ⎠ ⎝ 0.675in ⎠ ⎝ 0.75in ⎠
SPAN 2
8in
t* = 0.033in + = 1.033in
η
4(6162in 2 ) 2
J= = 368,603.5in 4
⎛ 96in ⎞ ⎛ 79.8in ⎞ ⎛ 62in ⎞
⎜ ⎟ + 2⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1.033in ⎠ ⎝ 0.675in ⎠ ⎝ 0.75in ⎠
39
SPAN 3
8in
t* = 0.032in + = 1.032in
η
4(6162in 2 ) 2
J= = 368,523in 4
⎛ 96in ⎞ ⎛ 79.8in ⎞ ⎛ 62in ⎞
⎜ ⎟ + 2⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1.032in ⎠ ⎝ 0.675in ⎠ ⎝ 0.75in ⎠
CL CROSS-SECTION
12" CURB WIDTH
10' DESIGN LANE
640 lb/ft 640 lb/ft
SPAN 1
Torque from 18 kip load on each girder:
T = 18 kip x 0.83 ft = 15 k-ft
Both girders have the same torsional load.
(15k − ft )(105 ft )(105 ft )
φ (105 ft ) = 4
= 2.75 × 10− 5 rad (1)
(1,612,800ksf )(17.74 ft )(210 ft )
(0.53k − ft )(210 ft ) 2
φ (105 ft ) = = 0.00010rad (2)
8(1,612,800ksf )(17.74 ft 4 )
(1) rotation in outer girder due to eccentricity of 18 kip load
(2) rotation in outer girder due to constant eccentricity of lane load
40
total rotation = (1) + (2) = 0.00013 rad = 0.007°
∆ = xrφ Æ ∆ = (48in)(0.00013rad ) = 0.01in
SPAN 2
Torque from 18 kip load on each girder:
T = 18 kip x 0.83 ft = 15 k-ft
Torque from 18 kip load due to bridge curvature:
T = 18 kip x 5.56 ft = 100.08 k-ft (inner girder)
T = 18 kip x 21.89 ft = 394.02 k-ft (outer girder)
(0.53k − ft )(250 ft ) 2
φ (125 ft ) = = 0.00014rad (3)
8(1,612,800ksf )(17.78 ft 4 )
7(0.64kip)(21.89 ft )(250 ft ) 2
φ (125 ft ) = = 0.00297rad (4)
72(1,612,800ksf )(17.78 ft 4 )
(1) rotation in outer girder due to eccentricity of 18 kip load
(2) rotation in outer girder from 18 kip load due to bridge curvature
(3) rotation in outer girder due to constant eccentricity of lane load
(4) rotation in outer girder from lane load due to bridge curvature
SPAN 3
Torque from 18 kip load on each girder:
T = 18 kip x 0.83 ft = 15 k-ft
Torque from 18 kip load due to bridge curvature:
T = 18 kip x 1.74 ft = 31.32 k-ft (inner girder)
T = 18 kip x 18.07 ft = 325.26 k-ft (outer girder)
Outer girder has the larger torsional load.
(15k − ft )(107.5 ft )(107.5 ft )
φ (107.5 ft ) = 4
= 2.81 × 10− 5 rad (1)
(1,612,800ksf )(17.77 ft )(215 ft )
(325.26k − ft )(107.5 ft )(107.5 ft )
φ (107.5 ft ) = = 0.00061rad (2)
(1,612,800ksf )(17.77 ft 4 )(215 ft )
41
(0.53k − ft )(215 ft ) 2
φ (107.5 ft ) = = 0.00011rad (3)
8(1,612,800ksf )(17.77 ft 4 )
7(0.64kip)(18.07 ft )(215 ft ) 2
φ (107.5 ft ) = = 0.00181rad (4)
72(1,612,800ksf )(17.77 ft 4 )
(1) rotation in outer girder due to eccentricity of 18 kip load
(2) rotation in outer girder from 18 kip load due to bridge curvature
(3) rotation in outer girder due to constant eccentricity of lane load
(4) rotation in outer girder from lane load due to bridge curvature
SPAN 1
Moment due to Slab Support Displacements:
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
⎢ 1 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎜ 1 ⎟⎥
M ∆ = 6(3605ksi)(512in 4 )(0.01) ⎢ − ⎜ − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎥
2 ⎜ 2
(100in) 2 ⎟⎠⎜ 1 + 2(96in) ⎟⎥
⎢ (96in) ⎝ (96in) ⎜ ⎟
⎢⎣ ⎝ 100in ⎠⎥⎦
M∆ = 15.5 k-in = 1.3 k-ft
⎛ ⎞
(2.05kip)(100in) ⎜⎜ 3 ⎟
⎟ = 15.6 k-in = 1.3 k-ft
M1 =
8 ⎜ 3 + 2(96in) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ 100in ⎠
(2.05kip)(100in)
M2 = − M 1 = 36.0 k-in = 3.0 k-ft
4
42
Moment due to Self-Weight of Slab:
The weight of the concrete slab is:
wconc = 1 ft × 0.67 ft × 150lbs / ft 3 = 100.5lbs / ft
3
DF = = 0.61
2 L1
3+
L2
(.1kip / ft )(2.83 ft ) 2
Ma = = 0.4 kip-ft
2
(.1kip / ft )(8 ft ) 2 (.1kip / ft )(2.83 ft ) 2 (.1kip / ft )(8.33 ft ) 2
Mb = (1 − DF ) + ( DF − 1) + ( DF )
8 4 12
Mb = 0.6 kip-ft
3.3 k-ft
@ center
-3.2 k-ft
@ location "a" M due to displ
M due to P
M due to SW
Total Moment
SPAN 2
Moment due to Slab Support Displacements:
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
⎢ 1 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎜ 1 ⎟⎥
M ∆ = 6(3605ksi)(512in )(0.19) ⎢
4
− ⎜⎜ − ⎟
2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢ (96in ) 2
⎝ (96in ) 2
(100in ) ⎜
⎠⎜ 1 + 2(96in ) ⎟⎥
⎟
⎣⎢ ⎝ 100in ⎠⎥⎦
M∆ = 294.5 k-in = 24.5 k-ft
The moments due to the design wheel load and the self-weight of the slab are the same as those calculated
for span 1.
43
-22.6 k-ft
@ location "a"
M due to displ
M due to P
SPAN 3
Moment due to Slab Support Displacements:
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
⎢ 1 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎜ 1 ⎟⎥
M ∆ = 6(3605ksi)(512in 4 )(0.12) ⎢ − ⎜ − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎥
2 ⎜ 2
(100in) 2 ⎟⎠⎜ 1 + 2(96in) ⎟⎥
⎢ (96in) ⎝ (96in) ⎜ ⎟
⎢⎣ ⎝ 100in ⎠⎥⎦
M∆ = 186.0 k-in = 15.5 k-ft
The moments due to the design wheel load and the self-weight of the slab are the same as those calculated
for span 1.
13.6 k-ft
@ location "a"
M due to displ
M due to P
-17.4 k-ft
M due to SW
@ location "a" Total Moment
44
5.3.4 Capacity of Slab
The ultimate moment capacity of a 1-ft strip of the slab was obtained using the slab moment-curvature
relationship. A cross section of that 1-ft strip is shown in Figure 5.16. The ultimate moment capacity
was determined to be 21.4 k-ft. This value was calculated using a regular stress block and disregarding
strain hardening in the steel reinforcing bars.
1 ft
241"
621"
8"
#5
f y = 60 ksi
(TYP.)
SPAN 1
Maximum +M = 3.3 k-ft
Maximum –M = -3.2 k-ft
45
(197.6k − ft )(62.5 ft )(62.5 ft )
φ (62.5 ft ) = = 0.00022rad (2)
(1,612,800ksf )(17.78 ft 4 )(125 ft )
(0.53k − ft )(125 ft ) 2
φ (62.5 ft ) = 4
= 3.61 × 10− 5 rad (3)
8(1,612,800ksf )(17.78 ft )
7(0.64kip)(10.98 ft )(125 ft ) 2
φ (62.5 ft ) = = 0.00037 rad (4)
72(1,612,800ksf )(17.78 ft 4 )
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
⎢ 1 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎜ 1 ⎟⎥
M ∆ = 6(3605ksi)(512in 4 )(0.03) ⎢ − ⎜ − ⎟⎜ ⎟⎥
2 ⎜ 2
(100in) 2 ⎟⎠⎜ 1 + 2(96in) ⎟⎥
⎢ (96in) ⎝ (96in) ⎜ ⎟
⎢⎣ ⎝ 100in ⎠⎥⎦
M∆ = 46.5 k-in = 3.9 k-ft
The moments due to the design wheel load and the self-weight of the slab are the same as those calculated
previously.
3.3 k-ft
@ location "a"
-5.8 k-ft
@ location "a" M due to displ
M due to P
M due to SW
Total Moment
46
SPAN 3
Maximum +M = 13.6 k-ft
Maximum –M = -17.4 k-ft
The requirement for an intermediate external diaphragm at the midspan of span 2 as determined by the
design procedure is based on conservative assumptions and simplifications of actual bridge behavior. For
instance, in the completed bridge, the two girders do not act independently of each other; the slab ties the
two girders together and plays a major role in restraining girder rotations. Therefore, the calculated girder
rotations in Section 5.3 are overestimated, and permanent intermediate external diaphragms would likely
not be required in reality. This is discussed further in Chapter 6.
47
48
CHAPTER 6:
EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF DESIGN
METHOD WITH BRIDGE K
Chapter 6:
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Data were recorded for the concrete deck pours on bridge K, as well as a live load test on bridge K after
the concrete deck had hardened past its 28-day strength. Presented in this chapter are results from the
pours and load test for two instrumented intermediate external diaphragms. In addition, those measured
values are compared with the values that would be expected using the design procedure that is introduced
in Chapter 4. The concrete deck pours were completed over a one-week period in March 2001, and the
live load test was conducted on June 7, 2001.
6.2.1 Description
Two intermediate external diaphragms were instrumented on Bridge K, both located in the center span.
In addition, a total of eight top flange lateral braces and six individual girder cross sections were also
instrumented, and temperatures were monitored at two separate locations inside the outer girder.
Figure 6.1 shows the locations of the various instrumented members and cross sections throughout the
bridge. Refer to the figures in section 1.2 for the orientation of the bridge.
21X Datalogger
17K Multiplexer "T"
(12 Laterals & 4 Girder)
Multiplexer "R" Multiplexer "U"
(12 Laterals & 4 Girder) (6 Laterals & 8 Girder)
Multiplexer "S"
(6 Laterals & 8 Girder)
-23x Datalogger
-Multiplexer "E" (6 Laterals & 4 Girder)
-Multiplexer "F" (6 Laterals & 4 Girder) 19K
-Multiplexer "G" (16 Thermocouple)
20K
49
As displayed in Figure 6.1, the data acquisition system on Bridge K consisted of two dataloggers, which
were connected to a total of 11 multiplexers. There were a total of 136 strain gauges and 16
thermocouples to instrument the bridge. The methods for instrumenting the bridge and calculating forces
and stresses, as well as specifications and recommendations for the data acquisition system, are presented
in detail in Chapter 2 of Cheplak (2001). Additional information about the data acquisition system used
in bridge K and the validity of the field results can be found in Cheplak et al (2002).
During each of the concrete pours, the data acquisition system collected strain gauge and thermocouple
readings every 10 minutes. During the live load test, the readings were collected every 10 seconds for an
average of 12 data points per position. The data was either downloaded using a laptop directly connected
to the datalogger or via modem.
94.0 in
4 5
60.0 in 55.0 in
1.2
INNER OUTER
GIRDER 1 GIRDER
2 3
121.0 in
A picture of diaphragm #11 installed on the bridge can be seen in Figure 6.3. The two gray boxes shown
are steel enclosures through which the strain gauges on the diaphragm were wired. Diaphragm #18 was
instrumented in an identical fashion.
6.3.1 Description
The pouring sequence of Bridge K is illustrated in Figure 6.4. There were approximately two-and-a-half
days in between the first two pours; however, Pours 2 through 5 were conducted on three consecutive
nights (refer to pour schedule in Table 6-1). Pours 4 and 5 were conducted on the same night.
50
The weather was generally not a factor during the pours; Pour 1 occurred in the morning with some cloud
cover and temperatures in the mid 60s (°F). The other four pours were completed in the overnight hours
with some cloud cover and temperatures in the 40s.
POUR 1 POUR 2
POUR 4 POUR 5
POUR 3
17K 20K
18K 19K
17K 20K
#11
#18
18K 19K
51
Table 6.1 Bridge K Pouring Schedule
POUR START END DURATION
1 3/13/01 8:39 A.M. 3/13/01 11:10 A.M. 2 hr 31 min
2 3/16/01 12:27 A.M. 3/16/01 2:05 A.M. 1 hr 38 min
3 3/17/01 12:00 A.M. 3/17/01 3:20 A.M. 3 hr 20 min
4 3/17/01 10:30 P.M. 3/18/01 12:30 A.M. 2 hr 0 min
5 3/18/01 1:06 A.M. 3/18/01 2:54 A.M. 1 hr 48 min
Table 6.2 Changes in Axial Force in Diaphragm #11 During Concrete Pours
External #11 Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Member 4 Member 5
Change due to Pour 1 3.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.4
Change due to Pour 2 -0.2 0.0 -0.3 -0.8 0.4
Change due to Pour 3 0.8 -2.3 -0.8 1.9 -2.1
Change due to Pour 4 8.1 1.3 1.4 0.1 -0.1
Change due to Pour 5 -1.0 0.4 0.2 -0.3 0.2
Total Change 11.0 0.1 0.7 1.0 -1.2
52
94.0 in
4 5
60.0 in 55.0 in
1.2
INNER OUTER
GIRDER 1 GIRDER
2 3
121.0 in
Table 6.3 Changes in Axial Force in Diaphragm #18 During Concrete Pours
External #18 Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Member 4 Member 5
Change due to Pour 1 2.3 ----- 0.4 ----- 1.3
Change due to Pour 2 -1.6 ----- 0.3 ----- -1.2
Change due to Pour 3 15.9 -0.5 -4.4 -6.8 8.3
Change due to Pour 4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.1
Change due to Pour 5 0.0 0.6 0.4 -0.2 -0.1
Total Change 16.4 ----- -3.5 ----- 8.4
The results from Tables 6.2 and 6.3 are also presented in bar charts, which can be found in Appendix B.
A sample bar chart is presented in Figure 6.6. The forces for the member presented are small, even
during the concrete pour that is directly over that diaphragm.
3
-1
-2
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
-3
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
53
6.3.3 Expected Forces in Diaphragms
In this section, the expected forces in the diaphragms that were calculated using the design procedure are
compared with the actual forces that were measured on the bridge during the concrete pours. Recall that
the assumed worst case torsional loading occurs when the bridge is fully covered with wet concrete. The
expected forces in diaphragms #11 and #18 were calculated according to this loading condition and the
arrangement of intermediate external diaphragms on bridge K.
Span 18 of bridge K, which is illustrated in plan view in Figure 6.7, included both diaphragms #11 and
#18. It has a nominal length of 242 feet and a radius of curvature of 572.96 feet. d0 was calculated to be
12.73 feet.
242'
#18
#11
12.73' 12.23'
6.75'
242'
The total dead load on the girders amounted to 3 kips per linear foot for the dead load of the concrete slab.
The self-weight of the girders is not counted in this instance because at the time that the corresponding
measurements were taken, the rotations due to the self-weight of the girder had already taken place. Half
of the uniformly distributed load from the wet concrete was assigned to each girder. The uniformly
distributed load and associated torque on each girder is illustrated in Figure 6.8.
T(x)
1540.3 k-ft 1540.3 k-ft
1.5 kip/ft
242'
The torque distribution in span 18 was broken down using Equation 2-3 to find the torque carried by
diaphragms #11 and #18. The torque values for each girder at each diaphragm location are shown in
Figure 6.9. The tributary widths for diaphragms #11 and #18 are shaded in the figure. The calculations
for the expected torques transferred from each girder to diaphragms #11 and #18 are presented in
Figures 6.10 and 6.11, respectively.
54
19.1 k-ft/ft
19.0 k-ft/ft
18.4 k-ft/ft
18.4 k-ft/ft
15.0 k-ft/ft
15.0 k-ft/ft
8.9 k-ft/ft
8.9 k-ft/ft
#11 #13 #15 #17 #18 #20 #22
~32.2'
~145'
242'
12.2 k-ft/ft
8.9 k-ft/ft
4.7 k-ft/ft
#11
32.2'
17.0 k-ft/ft
#18
24.2'
The torques at diaphragms #11 and #18 from each girder were used to calculate the expected forces in the
diaphragms for the assumed worst case torsional loading; the calculations are shown below (refer to the
example problem in Chapter 5 for explanation). Figure 6.12 shows the direction of these torques on the
bridge cross section. Summaries of the expected forces are shown in Figures 6.13 and 6.14. Note:
Figures 6.13 and 6.14 follow the same provisions as Figure 5.11.
55
Table 6.4 is a comparison of the expected worst case forces and the measured total changes in axial force
for all of the pours. Also presented in Table 6.4 are predicted changes in axial force from finite element
analyses of bridge K that were performed by Topkaya (2002). The finite element analytical model is
described in detail in Section 1.5 of Cheplak (2001).
For both diaphragms #11 and #18, the expected forces are much greater in magnitude than the measured
force changes. This is because the design method takes a conservative approach by assuming that the
torsional loads are only resisted by the diaphragm inserted at each location. In addition to being greater in
magnitude, the expected forces for diaphragm #11 are opposite in direction as both the measured and
predicted force changes. The expected forces were calculated assuming that each span had torsionally-
fixed supports and acted separately in torsion from the other spans; however, there could be a reversal in
the direction of the torque at diaphragm #11 (near a support) as a result of the three spans acting
continuously.
All of the measured changes in force in diaphragm #11 are very low, even in the top chord (stress =
2.3 ksi), which is much larger than any of the other members. Similarly, in diaphragm #18, the top chord
experienced the largest amount of force change out of any of the five members (stress = 3.5 ksi).
With the exception of the top chords, the predicted force changes for each member from the finite element
analysis are significantly larger than the measured force changes. They are larger most likely because the
finite element analytical model ignored composite action in the bridge cross section, and the diaphragm
stiffness may have been overestimated by not correctly modeling the girder-to-diaphragm connection
(Cheplak, 2001).
M M
1 55"
6'
4 5
2 3
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
56
1
20.5 k 20.5 k
24 k 4 5 24 k
20.5 k 20.5 k
2 3
0k
-31.6 k 31.6 k
20.5 k -20.5 k
1
44.8 k 44.8 k
52.4 k 4 5 52.4 k
44.8 k 44.8 k
2 3
0k
-68.9 k 68.9 k
44.8 k -44.8 k
57
Table 6.4 Changes in Axial Force (kips) due to K Concrete Pours
Diaphragm #11 Diaphragm #18
Member Meas. Exp. Pred. Meas. Exp. Pred.
1 11.0 0.0 4.7 16.4 0.0 8.7
2 0.1 20.5 -12.5 ----- 44.8 12.4
3 0.7 -20.5 10.4 -3.5 -44.8 -16.5
4 1.0 -31.6 16.8 ----- -68.9 -21.2
5 -1.2 31.6 -16.8 8.4 68.9 21.2
Meas. = Measured force changes with data acquisition system on Bridge K
Exp. = Expected force changes from design procedure in Chapter 4
Pred. = Predicted force changes from finite element analysis (Topkaya, 2002)
The expected results for both diaphragms are significantly greater in magnitude than the predicted force
changes (excluding the top chords). This is because of the assumption that the diaphragms resisted all of
the torsional loads and that the girders had no effect. More importantly, the finite element analysis
considers a three-span continuous beam with all of the diaphragms in place, while the design method
assumes only that there is a diaphragm at the location being considered.
It is uncertain why the forces in the top chords of both diaphragms #11 and #18 were so large relative to
those of the diagonals and bottom chords. According to the truss analysis, the top chord should not have
had any axial force as a result of the torsion in the girders. It is likely that these axial forces are a result of
some other force condition, as the forces in the top chords did not have an effect on the forces in the other
members of the diaphragms. A possible cause for this top chord axial force is unknown interactions
between the girder-to-diaphragm connection. Figure 6.15 illustrates how forces transferred through the
diaphragms would increase forces in the top chords only.
The largest forces in the top chords occurred during the pours directly above each of the respective
diaphragms. As shown in Figure 6.4, diaphragm #11 was located near the end of pour 4, and diaphragm
#18 was located approximately at the 2/3 point of pour 3. Figures 6.16 and 6.17 plot the force-time
histories of the top chords of diaphragms #11 and #18, respectively, during the pour that resulted in the
maximum axial force change for the member. It can be seen in Figure 6.16 that the change in axial force
in the top chord of diaphragm #11 experienced significant increases as pour 4 progressed and passed over
diaphragm #11 and was virtually unaffected by the air temperature at the bridge site. Similarly, it can be
seen in Figure 6.17 that the change in axial force in the top chord of diaphragm #18 depended on the
progress of pour 4 and that air temperature was also not a factor. During other pours, as indicated by
Tables 6.2 and 6.3, the force-time histories for the top chords show little changes in axial force.
58
20 20
18 Axial Force 18
Air Temp
16 16
14 14
POUR 4 POUR 5
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
IN NER OU TER
0 GIRDER GIRDER 0
-2 -2
3/17/01 9:00 PM 3/17/01 10:00 PM 3/17/01 11:00 PM 3/18/01 12:00 AM 3/18/01 1:00 AM 3/18/01 2:00 AM 3/18/01 3:00 AM 3/18/01 4:00 AM
20 20
18 18
POUR 3
16 16
14 IN NER
GIRDER
OU TER
GIRDER 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
Axial Force
0 0
Air Temp
-2 -2
3/16/01 10:00 PM 3/16/01 11:00 PM 3/17/01 12:00 AM 3/17/01 1:00 AM 3/17/01 2:00 AM 3/17/01 3:00 AM 3/17/01 4:00 AM
Even though the measured top chord axial forces were high relative to the forces in the other members of
the diaphragms, they did not cause any problems in the performance of the diaphragms. The axial forces
in the top chord were very low (maximum stress = 3.3 ksi), and the member size chosen for the
diaphragm was much more than adequate to carry this force.
59
6.3.4 Expected Girder Rotation
The largest girder rotation during the construction phase was expected at mid-span, where the torsional
loads are the highest. The maximum expected rotation occurred between diaphragms #15 and #17. The
torque diagram for this portion of the girder is shown in Figure 6.18.
19.1 k-ft/ft
19.0 k-ft/ft
18.4 k-ft/ft
#15 #17
32.2'
For ease of calculations, the torque was assumed to be constant for the entire section. If the exact angle of
twist were calculated by superimposing different cases, the resulting value would not be significantly
lower and would occur close to the center of the section. It is acceptable in this case to use the
conservative assumption of a constant torque in this portion of the span with the maximum angle of twist
in the center.
The maximum angle of twist was calculated using Equation 2-10:
This calculated displacement is well below the maximum allowable amount (0.25 inches), as
described in Section 4.3.
The low expected girder rotation indicates that the diaphragm spacing is adequate, as the vertical
displacement of the top flanges is less than the allowable amount. In fact, the calculated vertical
displacement (a conservative value) was only 1/5 of the acceptable limit. It can be concluded that fewer
intermediate external diaphragms were necessary to control the girder rotations in bridge K.
60
6.4 BRIDGE K LIVE LOAD TEST
6.4.1 Description
A live load test was conducted on bridge K on June 7, 2001, from 11:50 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. in order to
monitor the response of the instrumented cross sections when two overloaded TxDOT dumptrucks
stopped at 30 different locations across the bridge. The 30 locations are illustrated in Figure 6.19.
1
2
3
17K
4 TRUCK POSITIONS
1 5
2 6
3 7
4 8
5
9
10
#11 30
6 11 29
12 #18
7 13 28
14 15
8 16 27
9 17 18 19 26
20 21 22 23 24 25 20K
18K 32
10 31
11 30
12 29
13 28
14 27
15 16 26
17 18 19 23 24 25
20 21 22 19K
PANEL POINTS
From 11:50 A.M. to 1:15 P.M., the trucks moved over the outside girder of the bridge, and from
1:35 P.M. to 3:00 P.M., the trucks moved over the inside girder. The trucks remained in each position for
approximately two minutes in order to collect a large data sample for each location. A similar test was
conducted on bridge Z on November 9, 2000, as reported by Cheplak (2001).
The two trucks were positioned back-to-back in order to generate the largest possible torsional response
on the bridge, as shown in Figure 6.20. The combined axle weights of the trucks gave a total load of
88.5 kips. The trucks remained 40 inches away from the edge of the bridge deck for safety reasons.
61
In between the concrete pours and the live load test, some of the intermediate external diaphragms were
removed from bridge K. Because most of the bridge was directly over the interstate, the diaphragms
could only be taken down when the highway was closed down to allow lift access. The contractor had
very limited opportunities to close the highway, so the decision was made to remove all of the diaphragms
over the highway, with the exception of instrumented diaphragm #18. The diaphragms that were not over
the highway, including all of the diaphragms in span 17 and diaphragm #11, were left in place until after
the live load test was completed. This was accounted for in the analysis and comparison of predicted and
measured values. Figure 6.21 shows a plan view of bridge K with the external diaphragms that remained
in place for the live load test.
IH- IH-
35 35
17K SO NO
UT RT
HB HB
OU OU
ND ND
LA LA
NE NE SPAN 19
SPAN 17 S S
18K 20K
#11 SPAN 18
19K
#18
62
10
w/ Temp Correction
6
-2
-4
-6
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
-8
-10
6/7/01 1:00 PM 6/7/01 2:00 PM 6/7/01 3:00 PM 6/7/01 4:00 PM
After the temperature corrections were made, influence curves were generated for each of the diaphragm
members for both the outer and inner truck runs. These influence curves are available in Appendix C; a
sample is shown in Figure 6.23. The values plotted in the influence curves, which are the average axial
force values in the members with the trucks at each position along the bridge, are tabulated in Appendix
C.
-1
-2
-3
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
-4
-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
Figure 6.23 Axial Force in Diaphragm #18-5 during K Live Load Test over Inner Girder
63
6.4.3 Expected Forces in Diaphragms
Table 6.5 provides the appropriate a, b, and d values for diaphragms #11 and #18. Using the information
presented in Figures 6.24 through 6.26 and Table 6.5, the torques from the dumptrucks during the live
load test were calculated using the equations in Chapter 2.
The expected forces in the diaphragms calculated using the design procedure were compared with the
actual forces that were measured on the bridge during the live load test. In this case, the largest forces in
each diaphragm occurred when the dumptrucks were located directly above that diaphragm. As shown in
Figure 6.19, truck position #12 corresponded to diaphragm #11, and truck position #19 corresponded to
diaphragm #18. Using this loading condition and the modified intermediate external diaphragm
arrangement for the live load test (see Figure 6.21), the expected forces in diaphragms #11 and #18 were
compared with the measured forces in order to determine the applicability of the design procedure to an
in-service bridge.
During the run over the outer girder, the trucks are assumed only to have loaded the outer girder, and
during the inner run, the trucks are assumed only to have loaded the inner girder. The torque generated
by the dump trucks on the girders had two components: a torque due to the bridge curvature and a torque
due to the eccentricity of the load. In curved bridges, the eccentricity can add or reduce the total torque
on the girder, depending on the direction of curvature.
The total load of the dump trucks used for the live load test was 88.5 kips. Each truck had three axles:
one underneath the cab and two in the rear. Because the dump trucks were positioned back-to-back, the
four rear axles of the two trucks were very close together (see Figure 6.20). The combined weight of
these four axles (62.8 kips) was modeled as a point load in between the two trucks, resulting in a
concentrated torque on the girder. At positions #12 and #19, this concentrated torque was assumed to be
carried entirely by the diaphragm. In reality, the torque was distributed among the slab, girder, and
diaphragm at these locations.
Figures 6.24 and 6.25 show the positioning of the load on the diaphragms from the dumptrucks during the
live load test, and Figure 6.26 illustrates the concentrated torque due to curvature acting on the loaded
girder. Figure 6.27 shows how the torque from the dumptrucks transfers to the diaphragms by idealizing
the diaphragms as a straight-line member connecting the two trapezoidal girders. As shown in the figure,
only the loaded girder is assumed to rotate. This is a conservative idealization, as there would be some
rotation in the non-loaded girder in an actual bridge because the roadway slab ties the two girders
together. The reduction in moment at the left end in Figure 6.27 depends on the amount of rotation at that
end and the flexibility of the girder.
64
CL CROSS-SECTION
6' TRUCK 40"
WHEEL BASE
62.8 k
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
7'-10"
10"
15'-0"
CL CROSS-SECTION
40" 6' TRUCK
WHEEL BASE
62.8 k
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
7'-10"
10"
15'-0"
65
Tb T = 62.8 k * d Ta
242' 242'
a 62.8 k
a b
242'
242'
b
DUMP
TRUCKS
V
M V
2 M
Table 6.5 provides the appropriate a, b, and d values for diaphragms #11 and #18. Using the information
presented in Figures 6.24 through 6.26 and Table 6.5, the torques from the dump trucks during the live
load test were calculated using the equations in Chapter 2.
The expected forces in the diaphragms as a result of these concentrated torques are presented in
Figures 6.28 thru 6.31; the calculations are shown below (refer to the example problem in Chapter 5 for
explanation). Recall that the girder torsional constant is increased significantly in the final state after the
concrete deck has hardened. During the outer truck runs, the eccentricity of the dump trucks adds to the
torque on the girder; the opposite is true during the inner truck runs. Note: Figures 6.27 thru 6.30 follow
the same provisions as Figure 5.11.
The eccentricity from the positioning of the dump trucks and the bridge curvature resulted in the
following torques during the live load test:
Diaphragm #11: 62.8 k-ft x (5.87 ft + 0.833 ft) = 421 k-ft (outer run)
62.8 k-ft x (5.87 ft – 0.833 ft) = 316.3 k-ft (inner run)
Diaphragm #18: 62.8 k-ft x (12.23 ft + 0.833 ft) = 820.4 k-ft (outer run)
62.8 k-ft x (12.23 ft – 0.833 ft) = 715.7 k-ft (inner run)
66
1
0.63 k 1.25 k
1.1 k 4 5 1.1 k
0.63 k 1.25 k
2 3
0.31 k
-1.44 k 1.44 k
0.63 k -1.25 k
1
0.91 k 0.46 k
0.8 k 4 5 0.8 k
0.91 k 0.46 k
2 3
0.23 k
-1.05 k 1.05 k
0.91 k -0.46 k
67
1
2.75 k 5.5 k
4.8 k 4 5 4.8 k
2.75 k 5.5 k
2 3
1.4 k
-6.35 k 6.35 k
2.75 k -5.5 k
1
4.9 k 2.45 k
4.3 k 4 5 4.3 k
4.9 k 2.45 k
2 3
1.23 k
-5.65 k 5.65 k
4.9 k -2.45 k
Overall, the expected forces in the diaphragm during the live load test calculated using the design
procedure in Chapter 4 overestimated the actual forces on the bridge in diaphragm #18 but
underestimated the actual forces in diaphragm #11. Additionally, the expected forces are in the opposite
direction as the measured and predicted forces during the outer run of the live load test. The differences
are most likely due to composite action in between the girders and the slab and also because the
conservative assumption was made that the girders in bridge K acted separately when loaded with the
dump trucks. This apparently did not occur, as the slab tied the two girders together and provided
significant stiffness that in turn, reduced the effect on the external diaphragms. Also, as explained for the
68
concrete pour results, the effect of the three-span continuous beam, as opposed to three separate simple
spans, may have altered the torsion diagram along the bridge.
Furthermore, the expected forces in Tables 6.6 and 6.7 assume that the diaphragm is taking all of the
torque from the dump trucks. In actuality, some of the torque also goes into both the slab and the girder.
Diaphragm #11, which was close to a support, experienced smaller forces than diaphragm #18, which was
near mid-span. This is an indicator of composite action within the bridge cross section.
Table 6.6 Axial Force in Diaphragms During Live Load Test (Trucks over Outer Girder)
Trucks at Diaphragm #11 Trucks at Diaphragm #18
Member Meas. Exp. Pred. Meas. Exp. Pred.
1 -0.6 0.31 0.1 -0.3 1.4 0.7
2 -0.7 0.63 -4.9 0.1 2.75 -6.3
3 0.7 -1.25 3.6 1.6 -5.5 4.5
4 1.9 -1.44 6.2 2.0 -6.35 7.9
5 -1.9 1.44 -6.2 -2.6 6.35 -7.9
Meas. = Measured forces with data acquisition system on Bridge K
Exp. = Expected forces from design procedure in Chapter 4
Pred. = Predicted force changes from finite element analysis (Topkaya, 2002)
Table 6.7 Axial Force in Diaphragms During Live Load Test (Trucks over Inner Girder)
Trucks at Diaphragm #11 Trucks at Diaphragm #18
Member Meas. Exp. Pred. Meas. Exp. Pred.
1 -0.1 0.23 0.2 -0.1 1.23 0.9
2 1.5 0.91 5.4 1.8 4.9 8.9
3 0.0 -0.46 -3.9 -0.1 -2.45 -6.4
4 -2.0 -1.05 -6.8 -3.2 5.65 -11.2
5 2.1 1.05 6.8 4.2 5.65 11.2
The response of the intermediate external diaphragms during the live load test appears to have been
dominated by differential displacement between the two girders instead of torsional moments from the
dump trucks. During the live load test, the loaded girder deflects while the other girder does not, and the
resulting differential displacement induces axial forces in the diaphragms. The directions of these forces
for displacement in both the outer and inner girders are shown in Figures 6.32 and 6.33, respectively. The
directions of the forces shown, which ignore the effect of the slab, are the same as the directions of both
the measured and predicted forces that are presented in Tables 6.6 and 6.7. The small forces measured in
the diaphragms during the live load test (maximum stress = 0.9 ksi) indicate that the differential
displacement in the girders was very low. This was expected because of the large stiffness of the
composite bridge cross section comprised of the two girders and roadway slab.
The predicted forces for each member from the finite element analysis correlated well with the actual
forces. This is because the finite element analytical model included the effect of the slab and interaction
between the two girders. However, difficulty in modeling the girder-to-diaphragm connection resulted in
the predicted forces being three to four times greater than the actual forces.
69
6.4.4 Expected Girder Rotation
The largest girder rotation during the load test was expected with the dump trucks positioned midway
between two intermediate external diaphragms. Recall that some of the diaphragms in span 18 were
removed before the live load test occurred (see Figure 6.16). The longest distance in between diaphragms
was from diaphragm #18 to pier 19K: 97 feet. The girder torsional stiffness was significantly increased
by the addition of the slab (316,000 in4 vs. 40,000 in4).
1
INNER OUTER ∆
GIRDER 4 5 GIRDER
2 3
+ -
- +
Figure 6.32 Axial Forces due to Deflection of Outer Girder
1
∆ INNER OUTER
GIRDER 4 5 GIRDER
2 3
70
φ (a ) =
Pdab (62.8k )(8.16 ft )(48.5 ft )(48.5 ft )
Æ φ (48.5 ft ) = = 0.00051rad (2)
GJL (1,612,800ksf )(15.24 ft 4 )(97 ft )
φ (a ) =
Pdab (62.8k )(12.73 ft )(56.6 ft )(24 ft )
Æ φ (56.6 ft ) = = 0.00046rad (2)
GJL (1,612,800ksf )(15.24 ft 4 )(97 ft )
6.5 SUMMARY
The design procedure presented in Chapter 4 demonstrated limited applicability to an actual bridge in
service (bridge K). The design procedure proved to be conservative for the construction phase, as it
provided diaphragm member design forces that were significantly larger than the actual member forces
that were caused by the concrete deck pours. This is most likely because the design method assumed that
only the diaphragms resisted the torsional loads and that the girders had no effect. In addition, the design
71
procedure ignored composite action during the concrete pours. Information about composite action
during concrete deck pours is presented by Topkaya (2002).
Forces calculated using the design procedure did not relate as well with measured or predicted forces
during the live load test; therefore, the applicability of the design procedure to in-service bridges is not
certain. Although the design procedure ignores the effect of the slab in increasing stiffness and strength
of the bridge cross section and treats each girder as if it is acting separately and independently, the
behavior of the slab due to live load appears to dominate the actual overall bridge response to live loads.
Including the effect of the slab (i.e. modeling the slab with elastic supports) requires a more sophisticated
analysis of the bridge, which is beyond the scope of this study.
In summary, it is difficult to accurately predict forces in the diaphragms using the design procedure. This
uncertainty should be taken into account when selecting member sizes for intermediate external
diaphragms in future bridges. Regardless, the diaphragms are not likely to experience very large forces
during both the construction and in-service phases. It is important to minimize the number of
intermediate external diaphragms used in the construction of a bridge of this type because of their high
cost of installation and removal.
72
CHAPTER 7:
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 7:
7.1 SUMMARY
A design method was developed for intermediate external diaphragms for curved steel trapezoidal box
girder bridges from a study of torsion in curved girders and its effect on twin-trapezoidal girder bridge
systems. The design method was evaluated by comparing results with a highway bridge in Austin, Texas
that was opened to traffic in September 2001. Two intermediate external diaphragms on the bridge were
instrumented with strain gauges and monitored during the concrete deck pours and a live load test after
the deck had hardened. The live load test was conducted with two TxDOT dumptrucks that were placed
at 30 different positions on the bridge deck on both the inner and outer portions of the curve.
• A0 =
1
(b1 + b3 )h (2-4)
2
4 A02
• J= (2-5)
∑ (bi / t i )
2. Rotation Due to Dead Loads:
⎡ ⎛ α ⎞⎤
• d 0 = R ⎢1 − sin ⎜ 90° − ⎟⎥ (2-2)
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦
73
⎛ L ⎞ 7 wd 0 L
2
• φmax = φ⎜ ⎟ = (2-12)
⎝2⎠ 72GJ
3. Required Number of Intermediate Diaphragms:
¼ 7 wd 0 L2
• φmax = =
xr 72GJ
• Solve for L to determine the maximum spacing.
4. Standard Diaphragm:
• Determine the diaphragm with the largest torque from the girder torsional load diagram
• Determine the member design forces with an appropriate factor-of-safety
• Select bracing configuration and size members
II. Check Bridge In Service:
1. Rotation Due to Live Loads:
• Calculate rotations in girders caused by worst case live load (truck train) using
appropriate angle of twist (φ) formulas in Section 2.5.
• ∆ = xrφ (2-15)
2. Evaluate Concrete Deck
• Calculate moments per foot of deck using appropriate moment cases in Chapter 3
• Calculate ultimate moment capacity per foot of deck
• If moments in deck are less than ultimate moment capacity, no intermediate external
diaphragms are needed in the final state
74
APPENDIX A:
SLAB MOMENT CASES
RB RC RD
RA
X
L1 L2 L1
M∆2
M∆1
2 EI ⎛ 3∆ ⎞ − 2 EI
M ∆1 = ⎜⎜ + 2d 2 + d 3 ⎟⎟ M ∆2 = (2d3 + d 4 )
L2 ⎝ L2 ⎠ L1
− M ∆1 M ∆2
RA = RD =
L1 L1
M ∆1 + M ∆ 2 M ∆1 + M ∆ 2
RB = − RA + RC = − RD −
L2 L2
75
M ∆1
0 ≤ x < L1 : M = = − RA x
L1
⎛ M + M ∆2 ⎞
L1 ≤ x < L1 + L2 : M = ⎜⎜ ∆1 ⎟⎟( x − L1 ) − M ∆1
⎝ L2 ⎠
L1 + L2 ≤ x ≤ 2 L1 + L2 : M = −
M ∆2
[x − (L1 + L2 )] + M ∆ 2 = RD [x − (L1 + L2 )] − M ∆ 2
L1
⎡ 12∆ ⎛ 2 L2 A ⎞ ⎤
⎜ + 1⎟ ⎥
d 2 3∆ 6∆A ⎢⎢ L32 ⎝ B ⎠⎥
d1 = − + d2 = −
2 L1 B ⎢ 4
−B ⎥
⎢ 2
L2 B ⎥
⎣ ⎦
6∆ ⎛ 2 L2 A ⎞
⎜ + 1⎟
L22 ⎝ B ⎠ d3
d3 = d4 = −
4 2
2
−B
L2 B
1 1 3 4
A= 2
− 2 B= +
L1 L2 L1 L2
76
Case 2: Pair of Equal and Opposite Support Displacements (Antisymmetric)
∆ ∆
RB RD
RA RC
X
L1 L2 L1
M∆
M∆
⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤ ⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
⎢1 ⎛ 1 ⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎞⎜ ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
2
M ∆ = 6 EI∆ ⎢ 2 − ⎜⎜ 2 − 2 ⎟⎟
1 ⎥ = 6 EI∆ ⎢− 2 − ⎜ 2 − 2 ⎟⎜ 2
2 1 2 ⎟⎥
⎜
⎢ L1 ⎝ L1 L2 ⎠ 1 + 1 ⎥
2 L ⎟ ⎢ L2 ⎜⎝ L1 L2 ⎟⎠⎜ 2 + L2 ⎟⎥
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ L2 ⎠⎥⎦ ⎢
⎣ ⎝ L1 ⎠⎦
M∆ M ∆ 2M ∆ 2M ∆
RA = RD = − RB = RC = + = − RA +
L1 L1 L2 L2
M∆
0 ≤ x < L1 : M = x = − RA x
L1
L1 ≤ x ≤ L1 +
L2
: M =
2M ∆
(x − L1 ) − M ∆
2 L2
ANTISYMMETRIC
77
Case 3: Pair of Equal and Opposite Support Displacements (Symmetric)
∆ ∆
RB RC
RA RD
X
L1 L2 L1
M∆ M∆
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
M∆ = ⎜
2 ⎟ × ⎛⎜ 6 EI∆ ⎞⎟
⎜ 3L2 ⎟ ⎜⎝ L12 ⎟⎠
⎜2+ ⎟
⎝ L1 ⎠
M∆ M∆
RA = RD = − RB = RC = = − RA = − RD
L1 L1
M∆
0 ≤ x < L1 : M = x = − RA x
L1
L2
L1 ≤ x ≤ L1 + : M = M∆
2
SYMMETRIC
78
Case 4: Concentrated Load at Mid-Span of Three-Span Continuous Member
L2
2
RA RB RC RD
X
L1 L2 L1
M2
M1 M1
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
PL2 ⎜ 3 ⎟ PL2
M1 = M2 = − M1
8 ⎜ 3 + 2 L1 ⎟ 4
⎜ ⎟
⎝ L2 ⎠
M1 P M1
RA = RD = − RB = RC = +
L1 2 L1
M1
0 ≤ x < L1 : M = x = − RA x = − RD x
L1
: M = (M 1 + M 2 )( x − L1 ) − M 1
L2 2
L1 ≤ x ≤ L1 +
2 L2
SYMMETRIC
79
Case 5: Uniformly Distributed Load on Three-Span Continuous Member
RA RB RC RD
X
c L1 L2 L1 c
wc 2 wL12 2 2
Ma = Mb = (1 − DF ) + wc (DF − 1) + wL2 (DF ) DF =
3
2L
2 8 4 12 3+ 1
L2
wL1 M a − M b
RA = RD = + + wc RB = RC =
w
(2c + 2 L1 + L2 ) − RA
2 L1 2
wx 2
0≤ x<c: M =−
2
wx 2
c ≤ x < c + L1 : M = RA ( x − c ) −
2
wx 2
M = RA ( x − c ) + RB [x − (c + L1 )] −
L2
c + L1 ≤ x ≤ c + L1 + :
2 2
SYMMETRIC
80
APPENDIX B:
BRIDGE K CONCRETE POUR DATA
20
15
Change in Force During Pour (kips)
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
20
15
Change in Force During Pour (kips)
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
81
20
15
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
20
15
Change in Force During Pour (kips)
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
82
20
15
-5
-10
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
20
15
Change in Force During Pour (kips)
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
83
20
15
-5
-10
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
20
15
Change in Force During Pour (kips)
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
84
20
15
-5
-10
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
20
15
Change in Force During Pour (kips)
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5
Pour #
85
86
APPENDIX C:
BRIDGE K LIVE LOAD TEST DATA
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
Note: the line connecting each of the data points along the influence curves stops for the
panel points in span 19 because of plotting issues with Microsoft Excel 2000, the program
with which these influence curves were created. As shown in Figure 6.12, truck positions
were located only at every other panel point in span 19. Data points only exist for every
other panel in that span: panel points 25, 27, 29, 31, and at pier 20K (trucks straddling the
expansion joint). Excel can only plot graph lines in between data points on consecutive
locations of the x-axis.
87
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
88
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
89
20
15
10
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
90
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
-15 INNER
GIRDER
OUTER
GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
91
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
92
Table C.1 Axial Forces in Diaphragm #11 During K Live Load Test
93
Table C.2 Axial Forces in Diaphragm #18 During K Live Load Test
(Trucks Over Outer Girder)
94
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
95
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
96
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
-15
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
-15
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
97
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
-15
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
98
20
15
10
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
GIRDER GIRDER
-15
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
20
15
10
Axial Force (kips)
-5
-10
INNER OUTER
-15 GIRDER GIRDER
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18K 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19K 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20K
Panel Point
99
Table C.3 Axial Forces in Diaphragm #11 During K Live Load Test
(Trucks Over Inner Girder)
100
Table C.4 Axial Forces in Diaphragm #18 During K Live Load Test
(Trucks Over Inner Girder)
101
102
REFERENCES
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 1996.
Chen, Brian S. “Buckling of U-Shaped Girders with Top-Flange Lateral Bracing,” M.S. thesis
presented to The University of Texas at Austin, 1999.
Cheplak, Benjamin A. “Field Measures of Intermediate External Diaphragms on a Trapezoidal
Steel Box Girder Bridge,” M.S. thesis presented to The University of Texas at Austin, 2001.
Cheplak, Benjamin A., Karl H. Frank, Matthew A. Memberg, and Joseph A. Yura. “Field
Studies of Steel Trapezoidal Box Girders,” TxDOT Research Report to be published. The
University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
Helwig, Todd and Zhanfei Fan. “Field and Computational Studies of Steel Trapezoidal Box
Girder Bridges,” TxDOT Research Report 1395-3. The University of Houston, August 2000.
Kolbrunner, C.F. and K. Basler. Torsion in Structures: An Engineering Approach. Springer-
Verlag: Berlin, 1969. pp. 1-21, 47- 50.
“Preferred Practices For Steel Bridge Design Fabrication and Erection,” Texas Steel Quality
Council, November 2000. <http://www.steelbridge.org>
Seaburg, Paul A. and Charles J. Carter. Torsional Analysis of Structural Steel Members. Steel
Design Guide Series #9. AISC: Chicago, 1997.
TxDOT Bridge Design Manual, Texas Department of Transportation, December 2001.
<http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us/dynaweb/>
Timoshenko, Stephen. Theory of Elasticity. 1st ed. 5th impression. McGraw-Hill: New York,
1934.
Topkaya, Cem. “Behavior of Curved Trapezoidal Steel Box Girders During Construction,” Ph.D.
thesis in progress, to be presented to The University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
Tung, David H.H. and Richard S. Fountain. “Approximate Torsional Analysis of Curved Box
Girders by the M/R-Method,” AISC Engineering Journal. vol. 7, no. 3, July 1970. pp. 65-74.
Yura, Joseph A. “Fundamentals of Beam Bracing,” AISC Engineering Journal. vol. 38, no. 1,
First Quarter 2001. pp. 11-26.
103